Measuring and Reporting Water Use
As Ted White explains in the video above, our goals when it comes to measuring and reporting are straightforward – you can’t manage what you don’t measure. That’s why measuring and reporting is a key part of our Policy Proposal for BC’s new Water Sustainability Act.
Measuring and reporting on water use will help to provide a more accurate picture of the water available and how much is being used. By requiring water users to measure and report we’ll all be better informed when we make water allocation and management decisions. Users can also demonstrate that they are complying with the terms of their licence. Measuring and reporting also provides a way to track our progress towards sustainability by allowing us to monitor improvements in water use efficiency over time.
This doesn’t mean that everyone will have to install a meter. There are alternatives such as irrigation records and/or pumping records that could be used to provide information on water use.
What are your thoughts on measuring and reporting water use? Please let us know.
Top
I was reading through the “Actions” associated with Living Water Smart and am wondering where you are at with the Stream Health Assessment goal for 2012: “By 2012, all students in B.C. will have completed at least one stream-health assessment.”
Are you developing curiculum around stream health assessments, or how do you hope to accomplish this goal? Thanks.
Thank you for your comments Chris.
Work on this Living Water Smart action started in 2008 in partnership with governments, educators and NGOs. Our current focus is on incorporating stream health considerations into the proposed new Water Sustainability Act. We plan to get back to the stream health assessment commitment later this year.
There obviously has been a lot of effort put into the writing of the WSA but it is difficult to comment on it as there are no definite regulations proposed –only possible concepts .The manner of the document will leave the ultimate regulations to the whim of the government no matter what the publio input has been as there is no place for comment on the actual regulation.
Water is a resource like no other and should be in the control of the government . The regulation being proposed may satisfy the requirements of the last century but it does not appear to contemplate the challenges of environmental degradation population growth and scarcity of the next century Public ownership and control is important .Private ownership should be based on quantity and time licencing .FITFIR should be phased out over time and replaced with time and quantity based contracts(like run of river)
Retaining ownership of all water rights will allow the public (government)to modify usage patterns to suit the environmental and economic conditions and provide cash flow for water management
Governance ,whatever form is chosen, will be best served with hard and fast regulations .There is too much vagueness in the act as proposed making mangement of the resource haphazard and prone to abuse .Consideration should be given to allowing individual lawsuits against parties that cantravene the laws of the act .
Water is a transient resource and needs to be managed differently than other resources .The regulations need to encompass all aspects of water flux including flows across the surface,through the underground (acquifers), precipitaion and any anthropogenic flows or discharges . Within reason (size) all should be regulated and licensed as per quantity,The anthropogenic will also require quality restrictionsay or may not
This is a timely act as I am aware of 3 projects in BC that have a reqirement for definitive regulations on water use
Our facilities are non consumptive returning water back to ground through infiltration and return to surface water systems or the marine environment. Freshwater systems, although in the large withdrawal category, are flow through systems – as there is little actual water usage and will have less impact on local water tables as compared to other water users. Generally well sites remove water and return it back to ground within 100m of source and do not effect surrounding surface water. Surface water use is returned back to the natural drainage system, fresh or marine,
within very close proximity to source. These factors must be taken into consideration when designing usage withdrawal schemes.
Water usage for irrigation is measured by acre feet and is easy to calculate, however an irrigator will use a different amount of water depending on the type of equipment used, the soil type, the weather, the climate etc and what an irrigation calculator such as the one provided by Farmwest indicates is required.
Water is essential for food production and therefor for agriculture, which includes the beef cattle industry. The amount of water used by a beef cow is quite a bit less than the amount used by a dairy cow and should be measured differently. Cattle and all other livestock require a continuous supply of fresh, clean drinking water.
Without adequate water for agriculture, BC food production will decrease and we will become even more dependent on imported food from countries that already have severe water shortages. Water used in agriculture does not leave the water cycle. When water is used for agriculture it is pumped onto the land or passes through an animal where it is utilized by plants and soaked into the soil. From there it can travel back to the lakes, streams, or aquifers or evaporate and return to the land as rain. Surface water is often used by agriculture. On the other hand cities often use huge amounts of fresh, clean water from deep wells for flushing toilets, showers, washing cars, dishes and clothing etc,etc. This water generally has large amounts of chemicals such as chlorine, flouride, detergents etc added to it and is not used for food production, and it is often highly modified before it is eventually treated and piped into lakes, rivers or oceans and returned to the water cycle.
The Water Sustainability Act considers any entity pumping water at 90 gallons per minute as a large water user. A more appropriate figure for large water use should be considered that would not include small communities or average agricultural producters, but will consider large cites and large producers as large water users. There is no dispute that some portions of Agriculture are large water users, however it is important to note what the water is being used for. Agricultures large water withdrawals are for food production and not for washing cars or streets, or watering flower gardens, lawns, or golf courses.
If the government wants to know exactly how much water each user is using let them pay for the meters.
There is a large difference between the amount of water used by cattle as drinking water and the amount used for irrigation. These uses should be addressed separately as irrigation used substantially more water.
Its clear from comments above and the documents discussing water conservation principals that we all agree on the importance of maintaining water quality and minimum instream flows for aquatic life. I have to believe the Provincial Government is serious in their stated intent to manage our water resource wisely. In the West Kootenays one of the main development activities that impact water quality and quantity is forestry – road building and logging.
Up until recently, waterusers, forest companies and community forests were able to access funding under the Provincial “Forest Investment Account” to monitor water quality and flows on important local streams.
I am disappointed to learn that the Province has eliminated water monitoring as an eligible activity under this program. Recognizing the importance of this activity, local businesses and community groups have turned to other funders.
Re: WSA
Could you please tell us if any studies were done to see how rural property values might be affected by changes to the Water Act. Changes to FITFIR, permits, term limits for licences etc. might affect rural domestic water users more than city users.
Also, could you please tell us if any studies were done to see what increased water costs the average rural domestic water user might expect to see due to changes to the Water Act.
On the news today there was a report that the City of Vancouver has reduced its consumption of bottled water from 20% to 20%. It doesn’t seem fair to change regulations to rural domestic water users if the City of Vancouver continues to use bottled water.
The Pembina Institute’s submission to WAM stated that shale gas extraction (fracking) uses significant water resources and this will continue to increase and should be regulated under the Water Act. Quebec is apparently now studying fracking.
If there are regulations that limit terms of licences etc. it should be very clear who the regulations will actually apply to and which licences will be exempt.
South Africa has already tried prepaid water meters see(http://www.adropoflife.tv/PrePaidWater11Reasons.pdf). They were later banned by a Johannesburg court, so I’m not sure which areas they are still being used. Everyone should read this.
Christina Postnikoff